Some such plan of federation, as a transition step toward unity, would seem to commend itself to several important counties which are made up of communities like those which compose Alameda County. How these communities in the face of increased cost of government and the greater demands for public service are much longer to resist some measures toward greater organic unity it is difficult to conceive.
Even in the domain of public works the desirability of unified control is often of much importance. Thus in Essex County, N. J., it was discovered as early as 1894 that no adequate provision for a public park system could be worked out by the separate municipalities in that distinctly urban county. In the case of certain thorough-fares which ran through two or more of these cities, it was highly desirable to effect some sort of a continuous, uniform improvement. Certain lowlands, also, were found to lie partly in one municipality and partly in another, so that neither city could act to advantage independently. Some of the cities had no available space for park purposes, while others had the space, without the resources or the need for developing it. From every point of view the obvious course to pursue led to a general consolidation of park interests, and a comprehensive well-balanced park plan, county-wide in its scope. And so there was created a county park commission which has exclusive jurisdiction over park developments and maintenance. It is noteworthy however that this commission, as we have already indicated, was not made an integral part of the existing county government but a separate corporation; the heads of this new department of government were made appointive by the judges of the Supreme Court in order that politics might be eliminated from its control. Had the metropolitan area been under a single municipal control, no such complication would have been necessary. The county government was deemed unfit to represent the unity of interest throughout the several communities when an important new undertaking was under consideration.
Of the realization of the idea of the metropolitan unification under county control the London County Council[20] is the world’s most striking and instructive example. London, through the centuries, as some of our American cities have done in a lifetime, had grown from a multitude of small independent local communities into a single, continuous metropolitan district. However, the constituent units, of which the ancient city of London is but one, retained their historic identities and clung to their historic institutions. In this peculiar way London perhaps resembles the metropolitan district of New York or Boston or Essex County in New Jersey. From time to time new units of administration were laid down to correspond to modern needs, until the system of local government was complexity itself. In 1855, Parliament took the first step toward adjusting this situation, creating the Metropolitan Board of Works which, in the thirty-three years of its life, was responsible for much of the city’s physical improvement. But corruption and scandal entered its ranks and it was legislated out of existence. The London County Council was then established with a membership composed of one hundred and eighteen councillors, two members being chosen from each of the fifty-seven “parliamentary boroughs” or election districts and four from the city of London. From within or without its own membership the councillors select nineteen aldermen who serve for a six-year term. Through its committees the Council gets into touch with its various problems of the county, while engineering, medical, financial and other experts are held responsible for actual administration. A “clerk” who is chosen by the Council is in fact the coördinator of the whole system, somewhat in the manner of a city manager in the United States. A comptroller serves as the fiscal agent of the Council.
Upon the county of London thus organized are imposed many of the functions which in America are almost universally entrusted to cities: extensive authority over public health, all matters relating to fire protection, all metropolitan street improvement projects, the construction and maintenance of bridges that cross the Thames, the administration of the building laws and the maintenance of tenement houses. The Council has also limited powers over what we in this country term “public utilities”; it has power to establish technical schools and to build and maintain parks and recreation centers. Its financial powers, while subject in their exercise to the control of the Home Office, are comprehensive.
Nor is the county of London but a city by another name. The metropolitan boroughs have their separate identity and a very real authority, including a certain control over public health and public lighting. In any conflict between the boroughs and the county the Home Office acts as the final arbiter.
London county has a record of which it has good reason to be proud. To its credit it has a long list of mighty public works, conceived and executed in a spirit of public service. Apparently neither graft nor the spoils system have obtained a foothold. Here is a county which has become so conspicuous and interesting to its citizens that they form themselves into local political parties, founded upon genuine differences of opinion and policy to make their citizenship felt in its government. In the seats of the governing body sit, not the typical office seeker to which we are accustomed in America, but men of the influence and ability of Lord Rosebery, afterwards the prime minister of England, and Sir John Lubbock.
All of which would seem to go to prove that even at this late date, the county is capable of a very honorable service, if it is taken seriously.
The whole problem is of utmost importance to the future of American cities. Aside from the obvious economies of a single local government as opposed to two or more, it seems essential that the future development of large centers of population should not be hampered by conflicting policies of a double or multiple system of local governments. It is obvious, moreover, that perils which continually threaten the population of urban communities, such as fire, crime and contagious diseases, constitute unified problems which are co-extensive with congested areas. It would seem essential that the control of these perils should be a unified one and that too much reliance should not be placed upon a spirit of coöperation between different units.
[19] See Hormell, O. C. “Boston’s County Problems,” Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1913, pp. 134 et seq.
[20] See Munro, Government of European Cities, pp. 345 et. seq.